International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted in

International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
International protection and the rights of
the politically persecuted in the Mexican
experience
Ana BURIANO CASTRO, Silvia DUTRÉNIT BIELOUS
and Guadalupe RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA
Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José María Luis Mora
Resumen
Abstract
Estudio de la migración forzada rioplatense a
México, en las décadas de 1970 y 1980, como
un componente de los flujos migratorios del
siglo XX. Estos movimientos de población
actuaron como detonadores en la generación de
instrumentos de protección a los perseguidos
del mundo. El artículo se propone examinar
y valorar, en un marco comparativo, algunas
variables referidas a: i) los instrumentos de
protección interamericanos e internacionales
de asilo y refugio a los que apelaron los
perseguidos políticos argentinos y uruguayos;
ii) el reconocimiento de estos instrumentos y
la aplicación que de los mismos hizo el Estado
mexicano; iii) los límites que impusieron las
estrategias de política interna y externa al
confrontarse con la experiencia concreta, y iv)
la eficacia real de los instrumentos de protección
para enfrentar nuevas realidades y formas
represivas.
International protection and legal rights of the
prisoners of conscience in Mexican experience
A study of the forced migration from Río de
la Plata to Mexico, in the 1970’s and 1980’s
decades, as a component of the migratory
flows of the XX century; these population
movements acted as detonators in the generation
of protection devices for the persecuted people
in the world. The article aims at examining and
valuing, in a comparative framework, some of
the variables referred to: i) the inter-American
and international instruments of protection,
e.g., asylum and refuge to those appealed by the
Argentinean and Uruguayan persecuted people;
ii) the recognition of this instruments and the
application which Mexican State carried out; iii)
the limits imposed by the strategies of domestic
and foreign policy when facing the concrete
experience, and iv) the efficacy of the protection
devices to face new realities and repressive
forms.
Palabras clave: asilo, derechos humanos,
instrumentos de protección, migración forzada,
refugio, Argentina, México, Uruguay.
Key words: asylum, human rights, protection
devices, forced migration, refuge, Argentina,
Mexico, Uruguay.
International protection and the rights of the persecuted
L
atin America entered the contemporary migratory process with great
vigor as from a dual diastolic-systolic movement. It was recipient rather
than migrant —despite the political difficulties implied by the processes
of post-independency state consolidation—, of white European migration,
attracted by the offer propitiated by the excluding homogenization models
prevailing in the mid XIX century. This migration had varied luck, according to its
87
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
geographic distribution and achieved insertion in the Atlantic-oriented countries.
One century later however the region turned into an ejecting one as from the
great crisis motivated by the collapse of the model of importation substitution.
The social effects of this crisis included it in the trends that, in the XX century,
went beyond borders and oceans in search of human security and better vital
opportunities or to protect lives. The intense migratory flows in the XX century,
within which forced migration has had an essential social component, motivated
at international level to seek institutional instances to generate instruments of
protection for the persecuted in the world. Amidst these international waves, the
Latin American history gives an account of the reiterated searches for agreements
and protective instances for prosecuted and the lineaments of respect for their
rights.
These searches, questionings, emergence of new proposals and figures found
a privileged scenario in the 1970’s and 1980’s, when in the Southern Cone,
scenario of the dictatorships of National Security and of the coordinated operation
of regional repressive forces grouped in what was known as Operation Condor,
several thousand people were exiled. Those persecuted, because of their ideas and
political militancy, found in Mexico a welcoming territory and a society to (re)
insert their everydayness. Most of these people had to face multiple adventures
to achieve protection from the Mexican State and followed diverse routes where
procedures, collective and individual movements were combined, as well as
callings on international and inter-American conventions and agreements. The
categories of asylum and refugee as well as some other contained in domestic
migratory laws and regulations were merged at a different scale.
The circumstances present in the aforementioned decades were not strange for
the Mexican history; during the last century, the State had a common practice of
reception of the politically persecuted, most of the times in a passive manner, and in
some few cases, in an active and promoting manner. We refer to the exile from the
Spanish Civil War and Franco’s regime, and the overthrown of Salvador Allende
in Chile, followed by the establishment of the dictatorship. The Mexican behavior
was almost always adherent to the inter-American and international instruments.
Even if the practice placed it as a singular case among peers, it was not free from
governmental variations; one such variation was the strategies in foreign and
domestic policy applied by different governments. This variable influenced on
the interest, high or scarce, in sheltering politically persecuted individuals; the
statement of the strategies, and at the time, their consequences were linked to
both domestic migratory lineaments1 and to the accompaniment, formal or not, of
international treatises of protection, in particular those referring to the condition
of refugee. Another variable related specifically related to diplomatic asylum had
Acceptance or denial, easiness or blocking to the entrance of foreigners in general or according to their
origin.
1
88
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
to do with the perception and actuation of the in situ diplomatic representatives,
responsible for protecting the politically persecuted. It is worth mentioning that
these and other fluctuations made the Mexican State adopt stances and actions
sometimes confusing, contradictory and inconstant in the treatment to people
who asked for protection; elements of multidirectional origin concurred in the
described circumstances.
This article aims to recover, examine and value some of these elements; in
particular those referred to: i) the inter-American and international instruments
of protection of asylum and refuge that were called upon by the persecuted from
Rio de la Plata (Argentines and Uruguayans), which paved the roads to Mexico;
ii) the recognition or disavowal of this instruments and their application by the
Mexican State; iii) the limits that the strategies of domestic and foreign policy
imposed while facing the actual experience of the persecuted from the south of the
continent; finally, iv) the real efficacy of the instruments of protection to confront
new realities and repressive forms unknown back then. It is in the interest of
the authors to make a balance of the correct actions and limitations found in the
fulfillment of the international agreements, as for what they represent in the field
of human rights.
We would like to distinguish that this article is generated from a research
project on the political history of the Southern Cone in the second half of the XX
century, and from another related to policy and practice of asylum of the Mexican
State (Dutrénit and Rodríguez, 1999; Buriano, 2000; Dutrénit et al., 2002). There
has been great advance in the recognition of the facts and their motivations by
means of an attentive review of the documentary sources; in particular of official
Mexican files from the Secretariats of Foreign Affairs (SRE) and Government
(SG), and newspapers, whose information has been enriched by the testimonials
of those who were protagonists of the occurrences.
Following this situation, this is, the asylum requests from the persecuted
from Rio de la Plata, the responses from the Mexican authorities, the efficacy or
inefficacy of the international instruments, as well as the routes and migratory
insertions of the persecuted who attained the protection of Mexico is a complex
task. The most consistent documents so far obtained —even with certain breaches
which we try to reduce by means of the incursion into diplomatic files of the
territorial states2— are related to the cases in which diplomatic asylum was
granted and, to a lesser extent, the territorial. This does not mean that all of the
elements which compose the trajectory of the applicant can be traced; an instance
is given by the number of people who asked for protection and the number of
their companions, the changes in their migratory status, etcetera. In many cases
there are contradictions between the personal registrations of the protagonists
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores) and the National
Direction of Security (Dirección Nacional de Seguridad), Montevideo, Uruguay.
2
89
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
and those kept in the official archives. On the other side, the documental followup of the refugees under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) who obtained residence in Mexico, before this organism ratified the
corresponding international agreements is still a pending task.3
Instruments of protection
Among the legacies from the XX century one finds the international construction
of a series of instruments to protect people’s rights in three aspects: humanitarian
rights, rights of the refugees and human rights (Cançado, 2003; Principios, 2002).
In said instruments, in particular the most recent we will refer to (American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 2002: 181-189; Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, 2002: 89-96) it has been stated: the right to life, security and
integrity of the person; the right of equality before the law; the right to religious
freedom, as well as the right to free expression, opinion and dissemination; the
right to residence and transit, the right to the recognition of legal personality
and civil rights; the right to justice; the right to meet and associate; the right
to petition; the right to be protected from arbitrary detention; and the right to
asylum. As we examine below, the defense and fulfillment of the aforementioned
rights are at risk, implicitly or explicitly, when the politically persecuted ask for
protection and they are given asylum or refuge.
Undoubtedly, this legacy is the result from a complex and traumatic political
history and it is inserted in contradictory situations; while on March 23rd 1976, the
“International Pact of Civil and Political Rights of United Nations” (Principios,
2002: 101-124) came into force —adopted and open to be signed, ratified and
adhered by the General Assembly in its resolution 2200 A (XXI), on December
16th 1976, very soon the reaches and limits of the protection instruments for the
persecuted would be seen in the historic experience of Rio de la Plata. The Pact
ratified an international tendency of reinforcing the rights of man and the citizen
at the same time that the dictatorships in the countries broke them to the extent of
committing crimes against humanity.
Despite the political unrest, social inequality and contradictory national
development, Latin American societies have acted to the extent their own historic
experience has asked them to. Under these pressures, the states of the region have
tried to foster or, at least, keep up with the evolution of the systems and protective
instruments for the essential rights of man, either inter-American or Universal.
As for the protection to the persecuted and the right to asylum, gradually the
societies started reacting, learning and making decisions, firstly in the sphere of
So far a partial comprehension has been reached, barely satisfactory, in the cases after the establishment
of the Mexican Commission of Help for Refugees (Comisión Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados, COMAR)
and the acceptance of the figure of refugee under the mandate of UNHCR.
3
90
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
safeguard to people harassed for political reasons, and then in a broader manner,
protection for those in siege situations or in conflict with danger for their safety,
liberty or their own life.
In this learning and in decision-making, Mexico stands out because of its
policy of protection to politically persecuted people and respect to the right to
asylum; different moments in history, concurring with other countries in the
region, give an account of its traditional practice of asylum, and by the end of
the XX century, of the acceptance and incorporation of the refugee figure into the
domestic regulations.
So far, the evolution of the study of treatises on international protection to
persecuted individuals has left two kinds of instruments: asylum and refuge.
Asylum had a boom in the American continent; diverse agreements between
countries were reached by the late XIX century, and in the next century a
number of other agreements were signed by almost all of the members of the
Pan-American Union, and later of the Organization of American States4 (OEA)
(Unión Panamericana, 1967: 11-19; 27-59; 81-92); the Convention on Asylum, in
the frame of the VI Inter-American Conference in Havana, 1928; the Convention
on Political Asylum, in VII Conference of Montevideo in 1933; the Convention
on Diplomatic Asylum, and the Convention of Territorial Asylum, both in the X
Conference of Caracas in 1954 (Díaz, Rodríguez, 1999: 63-83). A review of these
instruments shows that despite the fruitful toils to have a juridical framework,
there were some pending subjects. Indubitably, the Convention on Diplomatic
Asylum in 1954 can be considered the most successful, as for the definition of
the concept; nevertheless, many of the terms were left to the discretion of the
functionaries of the territorial State or the one providing asylum.
In relation to the agreements that establish the condition of ‘refugee’, they
started to be issued and validated by some countries in Europe after WWI (Ruiz,
2003: 83-89; Galindo, 2002: 17-21), then they became universal by the end of
WWII and they were refined from new situations in Africa and Latin America.
Framed by United Nations Organization (UNO), as of 1950, there were important
steps in this respect; in the first place, through the resolution 428 (V) UNHCR
office and statute were established (Principios, 2002: 303-310). Some months
later, a significant number of UN members issued in Geneva the Convention on
the Statue on Refugees, which was followed by the Protocol of the Statute on
Refugees of New York, signed in 1967 (Principios, 2002: 311-338; 385-389). At
regional level several later documents were signed: in 1969 in Addis Ababa the
Convention of the Organization of the African Unity was subscribed, by means of
The 1928 Convention was signed by the representatives of the 20 Latin American nations, as well as the
United States, however only 16 ratified it; this instrument came into force in May 21st, 1929. As for that of
1933, it was subscribed by 18 Latin American nations (Bolivia and Venezuela did not do it), 16 ratified it,
it came into force on March 25th, 1935. Finally, that of 1954 was signed by the 20 Latin American nations,
with reserves from 4 of them nevertheless, only 12 ratified it and came into force on December 29th, 1954.
4
91
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
TABLE 1
MAIN INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS OF PROTECTION TO PERSECUTED
International
Asylum
Refuge
Instruments
Instruments
Regional and Sub-regional in
Latin America Latina
International
Regional and
Sub-regional in
Latin America
1889 Treaty on International
Penal Right (Montevideo)
1928 Convention on Asylum
(La Habana)
1933 Convention on Political
Asylum (Montevideo)
1939 Treaty on Political and
asylum and refuge (Montevideo)
1954 Convention on Diplomatic
Asylum (Caracas)
1951 Convention on the
Status of the Refugees
(Geneva)
1954 Convention on Territorial
asylum (Caracas)
1967 UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum (Geneva)
1967 Protocol on the
Status of Refugees
(New York)
1981 Conclusions and recommendations of
the Colloquium on Asylum and International
Protection of Refugees in Latin America
(Tlatelolco, Mexico)
1984 Declaration of Cartagena on the
Refugees (Cartagena, Colombia)
1999 Declaration of Tlatelolco on Practical
Actions on the Rights of Refugees in Latin
America and the Caribbean
(Tlatelolco, Mexico)
Source: Elaborated from Principios, 2002; Compilación, 2002; Protección, 2002.
which the Specific Aspects of the Problems of Refugees in Africa (Compilación,
2002: 111-119) are regulated, and in Latin America, the Conclusions and
Recommendations of the Colloquium on Asylum and International Protection of
Refugees in Latin America, in Tlatelolco (1981); and the Declaration of Cartagena
on Refugees (1984) and the Declaration of Tlatelolco on Practical Actions in
the Rights of Refugees in Latin America and the Caribbean (1999) (Protección,
2002: 283-286, 275-280 and 93-100) were approved. At different scales it can be
stated that the recognition for the refugee is currently a widespread context in the
universal normative engineering, yet there are some doubts on the strength of its
system.
92
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
The binomial asylum-refuge
It is worth mentioning that it is common to find reference to asylum and refuge in
an indistinct manner even in texts from several international conventions (Gros,
1992: XVIII-XX); both categories have differences established in the international
systems, however, and the recognition of one does not always imply the other
(Franco, 2003). An instance of this are the conventions specifically devoted to
asylum, which have had a singular place in the Inter-American system, as well as
the agreements mainly in relation to the condition of refugee in the framework of
the Society of Nations, and mainly UN.
The use of said concepts, at continental and world level, shows that it is not
a rhetoric problem, but they refer to different concepts and recognitions, with
particular acceptances and ascriptions in treatises which have been adjusted along
the XX century (Galindo, 2002: 72-82). In this way, even if asylum and refuge
essentially have a humanitarian character related to protection of persecuted, by
and large an important difference is accepted in relation to the cause or reason
of persecution: the first is exclusively formulated for the people who experience
harassment from their political ideas or acts (Compilación, 2002: 433, 445
and 467);5 while, the concept and condition of refugee comprehends a broader
spectrum, since it refers to harassment from race, religion, nationality, belonging
to a certain social group or political opinion (Principios, 2002: 312 and 385-386),6
as well as for founded fears of losing life, safety or liberty because of generalized
violence, foreign aggression, domestic conflicts, widespread violation of human
rights and other circumstances that gravely disturb the public order (Declaración
de Cartagena, 1986: 335-336).
A point of relative contact between these two concepts is the one called
territorial asylum, which has generated conventions both in the continental
(“Convention on Territorial Asylum”, 1967: 473-476) and international (“United
Nations Declaration”, 2002: 391-393) spheres; nonetheless, as a specialist points
out, in the sphere of UN they are “concepts which are not absolutely coincident
or synonyms, nevertheless analogous and similar” (Gros, 1992: XXIII).
In the framework of the binomial asylum-refuge, the recognition to the right
to be protected when persecution is experienced, as one of the essential human
rights, was stated and inscribed in the corresponding declaration under the
textual term of asylum with the connotation, implicit some cases and explicit in
some other, of territorial asylum which, as noted before, is close the category of
refuge. Chronologically, in the article 27 of the American Declaration of Rights
and Obligations of Man, signed in Bogota in May 1948, was first recognized in
Article 2 of “Convention on Asylum” (1928), Art 2 of “Convention on Political Asylum” (1933) and Art
2 of “Convention on Diplomatic Asylum” (1954).
6
Article 1.2 of the “Convention on the statute of the refugees” (1951) and Art 1.2 of the “Protocol on the
statute of the refugees” (1967).
5
93
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
TABLE 2
ASYLUM-REFUGE BINOMIAL: REACHES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE
CONCEPTS
Asylum
Political persecution (Inter-American
Conventions in 1928,1933 and 1954)
Refuge
Persecution by race, religion, nationality,
belonging to determinate social group or
political opinion
(UN Convention in 1951 and
Protocol of 1967)
Founded fear of losing life or liberty from
generalized violence, foreign aggression,
internal conflicts, human rights mass
violation and other circumstances that
have perturbed the public order
(Declaration of Cartagena of 1984)
Diplomatic
Territorial
It cannot be granted in the applicant’s
origin country, but in that providing
refuge
It is granted in
Given in the asylum
the applicant’s
country
origin country of
the
Individual
Individual
and
(occasionally mass)
collective
(occasionally collective)
Declarative
Constitutive
International
Regional (Inter-American)
International
Source: elaborated from that made by García Tovar, 2001: 8.
the following words: “every person has the right to search and receive asylum
in foreign territory, in the case of persecution not motivated by crimes of
constitutional law and in agreement with the legislation of each country and with
the international agreements” (Declaración Americana, 2002: 187). Some months
later, in December of said year, the right of protection in the case of persecution is
also established in the article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
as quoted below: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries
asylum from persecution” (Universal Declaration, 2002: 92). Later, the right to
asylum —by the way, also under the connotation of refuge— was recognized in
the article 22.7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, or Pact of San
José, 1969, where it is expressed: “everyone has the right to seek and receive
asylum in a foreign land in the case of persecution motivated by political crimes
or common crimes connected to political and according to the legislation of each
State and the international agreements” (Convención Americana, 2002: 205-206).
94
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
In Latin America during the first half of the XX century, the evolution of the
study of treatises on the right to asylum accelerated to the extent the political
conjunctures demanded, not exceeding however the casuistic limits until the
regional conditions and the international system questioned this study; in the
1950’s, in Central America and the Caribbean new situations appeared, which in
time and linked to new occurrences, showed the need to restate the instruments
of protection for those who were forced to leave their country or usual residence.
These conditions also urged the pressing mandate of incorporating the recognition
of the right to asylum as part of the essential human rights. The scope reached
by social and political struggles from the continental crisis, after the outbreak
and triumph of the Cuban revolution, surpassed the traditional frameworks that
circumscribed the phenomenon to the political and intellectual elites; at the same
time modifications in the characteristics of the asylum applicants appeared. This
fact challenged the scope of an instrument conceived for phenomena of smaller
demographic extension.
To this reality two posterior experiences were added: that of the Southern Cone
in the 1970’s and the Central American in the 1980’s; both reinforced the interest
of UN in finding internal state mechanisms in order to instrument the mandates of
the Convention of 1951 and the Convention of 1967. Even if nowadays the Cuban
State is the only one which has not ratified these instruments, the corresponding
acceptance and adherence has been progressively concreted, not as fast as the
political conjunctures demanded however.
The binomial asylum-refuge in politics and practice
In the Latin American context, Mexico was during the XX century a forerunner
State in respect to asylum, not so as for the condition of refugee to which it has
presented reservations for long time.
In reference to the figure of asylum, the Mexican State was the first to sanction
it in its domestic laws, as it was also registered in the political constitutions of
1857 and 1917 (Tena, 1957: 608; 822).7 It also was one of the first in accepting,
defending and applying the corresponding inter-American instruments, as it
is indeed demonstrated by the fact of being the first in ratifying, in 1929 the
Convention of Havana; the fourth in the case of that of Montevideo, in 1936;
and the seventh in ratifying the ones of Caracas in 1957; Besides, Mexico is one
of the eight Latin American countries which ratified the three aforementioned
conventions (Unión Panamericana, 1967: 30, 50, 87). On this basis, the successive
Mexican Governments were systematic practitioners (Rodríguez, 2003; Morales
7
See article 15 of both constitutions.
95
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
TABLE 3
MAIN INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Regional
Universal
(OEA)
(UN)
1948 American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Men (Bogotá)
1969 American Convention on Human Rights
or Pact San Jose (San Jose)
1948 Universal Declaration of Human
1969 American Convention on Human Rights Rights (New York)
or Pact of San Jose (San Jose)
1966 International Pact of Civil and
Political Rights (New York)
Source: elaborated from Principios, 2002; Compilación, 2002.
and Del Alizal, 1999; Buriano et al., 2000),8 which made them undertake diverse
efforts to institutionalize its policy in this respect (Carrillo, 1979: 33). It is worth
mentioning that at least up to the half of 1970’s decade, save the case of the
Guatemalan refugees in 1954, in general the number of asylum applicants was
reduced and circumscribed, in most of the cases, to political elites.
On the contrary, along the second half of the XX century, Mexico was reluctant
to commit and fully adhere to the UN documents related to refuge, such as the
Convention of 1951 and the Protocol of 1967. It was not until the 1970’s that
said situation exhibited its limits, when a numerous flow of South Americans,
not exclusively members of the elites, asked for protection in this country.
This evidenced the limitations of the asylum instrument usually employed by
Mexican authorities, as well as the little flexibility of its migratory policy. In
such a context, in the following years, there were small yet significant steps as
for the recognition of the condition of refugee; several milestones were shaping
and making this recognition tangible: the creation of COMAR, in 1980 (México,
Diario, 1980) and the acceptance of the agreement to a UNHCR seat, which
enabled the opening of an office of this organisms in Mexican territory, in 1982
(Imaz, 1995: 76).9 From this last it was possible to contribute to the respect of
the international principle of non-refoulement and was reflected on the migratory
In the first decades of the XX century, for instance, it received Leon Trotsky (Diplomatic Historical
Archive of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, bounded sheets 2258) and received a large number of republican
Spanish (AHDREM, LE 1120; LE 1121; File 31-10-3); in the fifties Mexico sheltered politically
persecuted people from the Central American and Caribbean dictatorships; in the seventies it gave
protection to a considerable number of South Americans.
9
In this respect it is worth mentioning that: “UNHCR can, invited by a government, and on the basis of
its universal mandate, work in countries which are not part of the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol.
The refugees recognized in said conditions are usually called “refugees under mandate”.
8
96
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
documentation that the Mexican government started to issue (Núñez and Díaz,
2002: 8-9). A decade later, after the experience of the Central American refugees
in Mexico, particularly the Guatemalans (Rodríguez, 2001; Rodríguez, 2003),
the figure of ‘refugee’ was incorporated into the General Law of Population (Ley
General de Población)10 and much later, in June 7th 2000 (México, Diario, 2000),
finally the figures of universal validity were ratified.
The existence of both instruments, in the case here studied, did not mean a
joint action, neither a planned interaction when the circumstances demanded it,
because of different reasons, such as the ones we enlist next. In relation to asylum
(political or territorial) we have to point out that it is indispensable that said figure
was recognized and incorporated into the internal legislation of the granting States,
as in Mexico it was and, to a lesser extent or depending on the circumstances,
ratified by the involved States (the one providing asylum and the territorial), in
this case Argentina and Uruguay. Nevertheless, the condition of “indispensable”
is not a sufficient reason to deny political asylum to the politically persecuted
from these countries or other, when they need it and ask for it. In reality, the
decision to grant protection or not was conditioned by several factors: among
them the variations in foreign policies of the different governments, specifically
for the case of diplomatic asylum, the perception and sensibility of the in-situ
functionaries of Foreign Service. It is worth clarifying that the fact that a State
grants asylum does not imply that it must necessarily move the persecuted in,
neither is the State forced to fully solve their problem of where to live.
As for the recognition of the condition of refugee under the mandate of
UNHCR, one of the requirements is the existence of one of its representations in
the place where the occurrences which put in risk the liberty or life of the applicant,
or else in the place they move to in order to be safe form repression. Thereby, it
is needed that a State accepts the installation of an UNHCR seat, which does not
necessarily implies said State has ratified the Convention of 1951and the Protocol
of 1967; what is more, it is necessary to have the state disposition of providing the
refugee with a territory to live and conditions to restart their life. Because of this,
it is necessary that the State that recognizes this protection includes the figure
of refugee in its internal legislation. None of these conditions were given in the
Mexican State in the 1970’s decade.
10
For this 1974 GLP was reformed and the migratory status of “non-migrant refugee” was incorporated.
97
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
Linked to this, the migratory regulation (Tena, 1957: 26, 30, 33, 208, 258,
309-310, 348, 373, 500, 559, 611; Compilación histórica, 2000: 91-101; 107120; 121-145; 147-177; 179-212; pp. 213-235; México, Ley, 1950; Reglamento,
1962)11 which the Argentine and Uruguayan refugees, arrived in the seventies
and eighties, had to abide by was regulated by the General Law of Population of
1974 (Compilación histórica, 2000: 237-265),12 which has had several reforms
and additions (Mexico, Ley, 1993: 93; “Decreto”, 1996)13 as well as by its
“Regulation” approved in 1976.14 In the article 42 of said law the category of
‘non-migrant’ was defined and nine characteristics were defined; for the case here
studied it is interesting to distinguish those of tourist, visitor, political refugee,
as they are the most used under the migratory forms: FMT, FM3 and FM10,
respectively; while for immigrant and immigrated prevailed FM2. We insist that
the category of refugee was not still in use and it would take another decade to
include it in the corresponding legislation.
In this way, the action of the Mexican State before the numerous group of
politically persecuted people from Rio de la Plata in the 1970’s was ambiguous:
on the one side, it recognized and applied asylum in its domestic legislation, in
agreement with the Inter-American agreements; on the other, it did not match
the international instrument of recognition of the refugee by UNHCR and the
domestic mechanism of migration that allowed the acceptance for said persecuted
to find a legal residence in Mexico. A plausible explanation for said acting is to
be found in the no-recognition, internal or external, to the condition of refugee,
Mexico tried and to a certain point managed to prevent a mass migration, as it
occurred in some European countries; it did not totally stop however, the boost
of those who, in spite of the migratory blocks, opted to arrive, regardless the
circumstance, to its national territory.
The origins of the regulation may be traced from the first decades of independent life, when several nonsystematic lineaments were decreed; properly, the first regulation as such on this topic was the Law on
Foreigners and Naturalization, or Law on Foreignness in 1886; then, the Law of Immigration, 1909, the
1926 Law of Migration, and the 1930 Law of Migration (with its regulation in 1932) were issued; in 1936
the first General Law of Population was approved (where the migratory status of tourist, trans-migrant,
local visitor, visitor, immigrant and migrant) and then another in 1947 (where the migratory status was
reorganized, recognizing only two: immigrant and non-immigrant, in the second group for the first time
it was recognized the case of people who asked for protection in views of “protecting their freedom or
life from political persecutions”, this is to say, political asylum). What is more, two regulations were
approved: one in 1950 and the other in 1962; in both specific lineaments for refugees were stated.
12
In this law the classification of immigrants and non-immigrants was preserved (Articles 32 to 75); in
the second group one finds political asylum, with some precisions (Article 42, Fraction V).
13
The reforms took place in 1974, 1975, 1979, 1981, 1990 and 1992; in none of them the definition of
political refugee was affected.
14
In it a clear distinction between political, diplomatic and territorial refugee was made, and it marked the
conditions they would be subjected to (article 101, fractions I to VII).
11
98
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
Table 4
Some Mexican Migratory categories
Article 42. Non-immigrant is the alien who, with permission from the Secretariat of
Government, enters temporarily the country, within some of the following
characteristics
I. Tourist. With leisure or health ends, for artistic, cultural or sport activities, nonremunerated or lucrative, for up to six months, non extendable
III. Visitor. To exercise any lucrative activity, as long as it is licit and honest, with
authorization to remain in the country for up to six months, only extendable once for
the same period, save if during their stay lives from resources brought from abroad,
from the profits of these produced or from any income from abroad. For scientific,
artistic or sport activities or similar, when two more extensions may be granted.
V. Political Asylum. To obtain their liberty or life from political persecutions in their
origin country, authorizing the time the Secretariat of Government deems convenient,
heeding the circumstances that on a basis case concur. If the political refugee breaks
the national laws, with no exception of the applicable sanctions, they will lose their
migratory characteristic and it will be able to grant the quality deemed convenient to
remain legally in the country. Likewise if the political refugee leaves the country, they
will lose all their rights to return as such, save they had left with the permission from
the Secretariat.
Source: elaborated from Compilación histórica, 2000: 280-281.
The situation in Rio de la Plata between 1970 and 1990
As previously mentioned the increment of applications of protection became
noticeable once the Southern Cone entered in the spiral of coups and military or
civil-military dictatorships; contingents of diverse social, profession and trade
conditions, integrated by complete familial nucleus, entered said condition,
formerly reserved for the opposing intelligentzia.
The new paths of political repression made national borders expire and
invaded the territorial limits of the neighboring states, where the persecuted
found momentary refuge; the coordinated repression shows the vulnerability
of the concept of sovereignty before the regimes “illuminated” by the Doctrine
of National Security. Several hundreds of people were captured, tortured
and disappeared in countries different from their own, or else, sent back to it
to face the same sort of atrocities. Operation Condor was successful for the
dictatorial purposes of annihilation of the “enemy” and its actions gravitated
99
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
around the efficacy of the instruments of protection.15 It is worth mentioning
that the occurrences showed different ways of violating the jurisdiction that the
international systems gave (and give) the diplomatic representations and UNHCR
to protect those who they considered or recognized as persecuted.
What occurred in the Southern Cone, especially in Argentina, showed in
practice what the mass flow of asylum and refuge petitions meant; the problem
revealed the chiaroscuros of the protection instruments, mainly the Inter-American
ones. Written and oral registrations on what occurred in Mexican embassies in
said region, in particular in Rio de la Plata, exhibit this problem as for: i) the
duties of the territorial State in respect to the issuing of the safe-conducts; ii) the
definition of persecuted of any nationality in the same territorial framework; and
iii) the determination of the conditionings and (its responsible) which threaten
the liberty or the life of the people (Buriano et al., 2000). At the same time, said
registrations show the decisive force of the aforementioned variables (perception
of the in-situ diplomat and conjunctural interest of the government which is asked
for asylum). The sources evidence the tension between the regulations and the
circumstances of their application, respect to the essence of political asylum
(Dutrénit, 2004: 168-185).
Given the limits presented by the asylum instruments before the generalization
of repression and its transnational character, the work of UNHCR was essential.
Documental and testimonial sources give an account of the decisive role fulfilled
by the regional office located in Buenos Aires, but also in the sob-offices in
Santiago de Chile and Rio de Janeiro.16 A significant number of South American
citizens (Bolzman, 1993; Sáenz, 1995; Fernández, 1993) received protection
in them, which constituted a relative but not negligible brake to the actions of
Operation Condor. Notwithstanding, the great effort of UNHCR was overcome
by the magnitude of the repressive conditions. Thus, the generalization of
persecution and the cooperation of the intelligence services of the armies of the
region showed the limits of both instruments.
It is worth mentioning that the regulation supported by UNHCR to fully
support the refugee presented at least two problems: one formal, referred to
Operation Condor was a secret system of the South American military and intelligence organizations
in the 1970’s decade, which allowed them to kidnap, torture and kill people living in other countries.
They were backed and technically and logistically supported by the U.S., which wanted to block the
advance of progressive and revolutionary movements in Latin America. The essential characteristics
of Condor were: trans-border and international operations against exiles (many were protected by UN);
multinational character of its squadrons; precise definition of the dissidents; reason to attack; parastatal
structures, this is to say paramilitary and para-police forces using a secret infrastructure; advanced
technology (a great deal provided by the U.S.); and use of crime syndicates, extremist organizations and
networks. The interchanges and relations between Latin American armies existed before; however the
squads of Operation Condor were the first ones to function with total impunity in other countries, crossing
borders, sequestering and killing people in other territories, under a secret agreement between the military
regimes. Hundreds of leftist militants from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay were
detained, tortured and killed in the framework of Condor, as well as well-known personalities, among
other: Zelmar Michelini and Héctor Gutiérrez Ruiz, in Buenos Aires in 1976” (Mcsherry, 2005).
16
Later UNHCR opened offices in Lima and San José.
15
100
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
the subscription/ratification by the states of the international agreements and
conventions which favored (and favor) or blocked (and block) the entrance and
permanence of the would-be refugees into the recipient country; the other relative
to the execution of durable solutions. The point was (and is) the application
of the principle of non-refoulement because the refugee, as a result from their
circumstances, cannot live in their origin country or where they usually live. The
experience in Rio de la Plata and other similar demonstrate the need that the
refugee should not only be recognized in views of protecting their liberty or life,
but it is also indispensable to provide them with a place of residence and conditions
to survive. It became evident from said experience as well the pressing need to
find solutions by means of generous migratory and social policies, supported on
inter-State cooperation.
Additionally, it may be said that the limits mentioned above helped, in some
cases to make the regulation on asylum flexible, in particular the parts referring to
the interpretations to grant it; in other cases they contributed to restate the effective
scope of these protection instruments. Simultaneously, it may be supported that
refuge under the mandate of UNHCR, granted from Buenos Aires, took forms of
emergency in the face of the critical situation and facilitated the departure of the
persecuted, frequently without the quality of refugees in the recipient country.
Rethinking the instruments in the light of the experiences
Different vicissitudes and more than a path marked the persecuted from the
Southern Cone in the 1970’s decade and revealed both the usefulness and efficacy
of the instruments as for asylum and refuge and their limitations. One of the paths
of those who reached Mexico was the one that began in the official Mexican
embassies on both sides of Rio de la Plata.
The aforementioned variables applied in the right to diplomatic asylum as
for the different governmental strategies and the personal characteristics of
their diplomats were present in Rio de la Plata and identified, in one or another
country, the coincidences and differences in a similar political and governmental
temporariness. Hence, while in Argentina the Mexican embassy provided asylum
to some sixty people, in Uruguay this figure almost reached 400.17 We have to
insist that the need to protect them was shared by millions of people, since the sort
of repression included the kidnapping of newborn and young children, and even
the elderly, the extended practice of torture, disappearance and extermination,
where the conception of “enemy” reached in potential terms the familial nucleus
as a whole.
A revision of Mexican governmental archives allows verifying that for the Argentine politically
persecuted it was more significant the figure of territorial refugees than that of diplomatic.
17
101
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
The number of applications (formalized or rejected) was different in each
representation, a situation that was not alien to the facilities or blocks each
exhibited, with stressed variations during these dictatorships; so were the
characteristics of the applicants. In Argentina, for instance, many Latin American
exiles, concentrated in this country, given the gap the national authoritarian
movements presented, looked for protection, but did not obtain it because of the
rigidity of the application of the terms of the convention of 1954.18 Buenos Aires,
in particular, became a trap for those who had looked for an exile place during
the scarce years of the “democratic promise” which comparatively offered this
country in the region.19 The application of diplomatic asylum in said country
required, not completely finding it, according to different testimonies gathered
from Argentineans and Uruguayans (oral archive) of the sensitivity to value that
it was the dawn of a novel repressive regime which demanded different rhythms
and styles to grant asylum. Nonetheless, we have to distinguish, the internal
conditions of the repressive regime as well as the decisions made by those who
fear for their liberty and life also are elements which have a role in the paths
to leave the country. In the Uruguayan experience, the Mexican ambassador
between 1975 and 1977 showed a sincere commitment to the ultimate meaning
of the right, at the time that show great courage to risk his own life to save those
of the persecuted. Hundreds were his protected, among them a group of citizens
from other countries. Indubitably, the diplomatic mission in Montevideo was
distinguishable among its peers from November 1975 to May 1977.
The contrast between one and the other representation, as for the granting of
political asylum, was also present in the efficiency to obtain the safe-conducts that
allowed them to leave with asylum; whereas in Montevideo the longest a person
remained in the diplomatic seat was nine months, in Buenos Aires was six years.
This extreme situation was not exclusively due, neither could it be classified as
principal, to the performance of the Mexican legation, but other elements should
be considered such as the strategy of the Military Junta.
Another difference, it is necessary to consider the efficiency of the protection
instruments for the persecuted: it is the functioning of the UNHCR office
in Buenos Aires, while Montevideo lacked one, which had strengthened the
protection that once the head of the diplomatic representation changed in May
Into Mexico arrived as diplomatic refugees Argentine citizens from other embassies; this evidences
the different interpretations of the asylum instrument of 1954. In this sense outstanding is the acceptance
of the reduced number of Argentineans by the Mexican embassy in La Paz (Bolivia) in 1980, when this
country experienced another coup, and in Asunción (Paraguay), between 1979 and 1981, when in this city
the former dictator of Nicaragua was assassinated, in which local authorities and neighboring countries
involved Argentinean citizens. The control of the migratory policy and the interest of the Mexican
governments back then also produced a change in the decision of granting asylum in Montevideo as
of 1977. Ever since, and in the case of granting it, it was made on the condition that the refugees set
residence in a third country; this that the departure from the embassy were conditioned to the acceptance
of a third country for the refugee to live.
19
We refer to the short spring of Héctor Cámpora, who entered office on March 25th, 1973, few months
before the institutional breakages of the Chile and Uruguay.
18
102
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
1977, moment from which the granting of asylum ostensibly decreased, and
thereby the applications.
At the same time, it seemed that the UNHCR office in Buenos Aires could
have avoided the blocks to the granting of asylum in the Mexican Mission,
however, despite the enormous effort and the achievements reached amidst the
unleashed repression, the difficulties were uncountable and the results insufficient.
UNHCR, together with European and international religious and governmental
organizations of different nationalities, developed an in-situ labor protection
(shelter houses where persecuted from different nations live together, which, by
the way, were more than once attacked and the residents detained by mandate) as
they tried to solve the procedures for the refugees to leave in varied conditions
of documents (with or without passport, false passport, or with regional-use
documentation). These actions generated critical situations and the recognition of
the international instrument of refuge.
What prevailed in that moment was to protect the persecuted and the main
preoccupation of the functionaries of UNHCR was to “buy time to the actions
of Condor; hence, they ceaselessly demanded the different countries a better
disposition to receive refugees. Some countries then stood out in the fulfillment
of agreements. In Latin America, with the exception of Cuba, which became a
recipient country, the answer was scantly favorable; the Mexican State, even
if provided some asylums, did not answer positively to the call; under the
argumentation that it had neither ratified the Convention of 1951 nor the Protocol
of 1967. It was reluctant to accept, save very few exceptions, the entrance of
politically persecuted people, for instance Uruguayans, according to registered
testimonies, which only had a catastrophe passport by the International Red
Cross before the impossibility of obtaining this document in their own countries.
The stance of Mexico was, on the one side, not stimulating as for the policy of
protection to refugees, especially if we consider the restrictive characteristics of
diplomatic asylum; and on the other, encouraging of a migratory strategy zealously
controlled. This is not invalidated by the existence of some cases of refugees
who, because of political agreements of their organizations with representation in
Mexico, obtained the departure from Argentina toward Mexico with the guarantee
of receiving their non-migrant documentation (Dutrénit, 2006: 131-183).20 While
this occurred, there was also the case of other refugees by UNHCR mandate,
Information taken from the National Institute of Migration, SEGOB, and the testimonies gathered for
the aforementioned research project, it allows seeing the measures taken by political leaders in exile
to displace refugees from Mexico to other countries so as to promote the authorizations to let other
Uruguayans in. An approximation in numbers, which only identifies the title holders, is the following: a
total of 19 people travel to Cuba, to live or with another destination, between 1976 and 1977; one person
in 1976 to Italy; three people to German Democratic Republic, one of them via Holland; a person to
France in August 1976; nine people to Spain, between January and August 1978 (two from the ambassy);
two people travelled to Russia, one in March 1976, from Mexico, and the other in December 1977 from
the Embassy; three people travel to Holland, one in June 1977 and two in January 1978, who leave from
the Embassy; three people travel to Bulgaria, one of the in September, another in November in 1976 and
the last in December 1977; one person travels to Angola in May 1981.
20
103
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
not included in said established political agreements (extremely complicated and
difficult to broaden), who made the decision to travel to Mexico even with the
risk (because of the contradictory of the situation) of leaving as refugees and
arrive as tourists. Their arrival in such conditions meant a lengthy struggle to
achieve the migratory status which allowed them to have a stable residence, for
which they had to go through several barriers imposed by the internal regulation
in this respect. The question was not easy at all, since neither in the General Law
of Population nor in its regulation did the migratory category of refugee appear.
In time and with the closeness of the Central American wars to the southern
border of Mexico, in the early 1980’s decade, there was a relative aperture for
the recognition of the refugees, which allowed, on the one side, the migratory
regularization of many people from Rio de la Plata living in Mexico; and on
the other side, the arrival as refugees, of a small number yet not negligible, of
Argentines and Uruguayans thus far living in different Latin American and
European countries.
It may be concluded that the passive or promoting fulfillment of the Mexican
State of the international agreements to protect the politically persecuted in
the case of people from Rio de la Plata in the 1970’s decade was processed,
fundamentally, by means of asylum, since the condition of refugee was virtually
unapplied. At the same time, it had a zealous and restrictive migratory policy as
for the granting of protection and residence, which started to change only by the
turn of the next decade, with the Central American exodus; this topic exceeds the
intention of this work nevertheless.
In spite of the ambiguity in the face of the binomial asylum-refuge and the
migratory restrictions, Mexico eventually became refuge land for thousands
of Argentineans and Uruguayans who used individual and collective ways
and means to reach this country and deal, easily or not, with the blocks from
migratory regulations to enter, definitely or temporarily, Mexican society, whose
State provided them with protection and respected their human and civil rights.
Bibliography
BOLZMAN, Claudio, 1993, Les métamorphoses de la barque. Les politiques d’asile,
d’insertion et de retour de la Suisse â l’égard des exiles chiliens, num. 2, Les editions
I.E.S., Géneve.
BURIANO, Ana, Silvia DUTRÉNIT BIELOUS and Guadalupe RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA,
2000, Tras la memoria: el asilo diplomático en tiempos de la Operación Cóndor, Instituto
Mora/Instituto de Cultura de la Ciudad de México, Mexico.
CANÇADO TRIDADE, Antônio Augusto et al., 2003, Las tres vertientes de la protección
internacional de los derechos de la persona humana. Derechos humanos, Derecho
humanitario y Derecho de los refugiados, Porrúa-UIA, Mexico.
CARRILLO FLORES, Antonio, 1979, “El asilo político en México” in Jurídica. Anuario,
Mexico.
104
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
DÍAZ, Luis Miguel and Guadalupe RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA, 1999, “Bases históricasjurídicas de la política mexicana de asilo diplomático” in Dutrénit Bielous, Silvia and
Guadalupe Rodríguez de Ita (coords.), El asilo diplomático mexicano en el Cono Sur,
Instituto Mora/SRE, Mexico.
DUTRÉNIT BIELOUS, Silvia and Guadalupe RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA, 1999, El asilo
diplomático mexicano en el Cono Sur, Instituto Mora/SRE, Mexico.
DUTRÉNIT BIELOUS, Silvia, 2004, “Para repensar la Convención de Asilo Diplomático
de 1954. Lecciones de la práctica mexicana ante las peticiones en el Cono Sur”, Cuadernos
Americanos, new time, num. 105, year XVIII, vol. 3, Mexico.
DUTRÉNIT BIELOUS, Silvia, Carlos HERNÁNDEZ MARÍN and Guadalupe
RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA, 2002, De dolor y esperanza. El asilo un pasado presente (video)
Instituto Mora, Mexico.
DUTRÉNIT, Silvia, “México de tres culturas” in S. Dutrénit, 2006, El Uruguay del exilio.
Gente, circunstancias, escenarios, Trilce, Montevideo.
FERNÁNDEZ HUIDOBRO, Eleuterio and Graciela JORGE, 1993, Chile roto. Uruguayos
en Chile 11/9/1973, Tae, Uruguay.
FRANCO, Leonardo, 2003, El asilo y la protección internacional de los refugiados en
América Latina, ACNUR-UNLA-Siglo XXI Editores, Argentina.
GALINDO VÉLEZ, Francisco, “Introducción. Resumen del derecho de refugiados” in
2002, Principios y criterios relativos a refugiados y derechos humanos, CNDH-ACNURUIA, México (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados,
derechos humanos y temas conexos I).
GARCÍA TOVAR, Máximo, 2001, De la tradición de asilo al reconocimiento del Estatuto
de Refugiado, Graduate thesis in International Relationships, FCSyP-UNAM, Mexico.
GROS ESPIELL, Héctor, “El derecho internacional americano sobre asilo territorial y
extradición en sus relaciones con la Convención de 1951 y el Protocolo de 1967 sobre el
estatuto de los refugiados” in 1992, Compilación de instrumentos jurídico interamericanos
relativos al asilo diplomático, asilo territorial, extradición y temas conexos, ACNUR,
San José, Costa Rica: xviii-xx.
IMAZ, Cecilia, 1995, La práctica de asilo y refugio en México, Potrerillos Editores,
Mexico.
MCSHERRY, J. Patrice, 2005, “Plan Cóndor: su contexto global” in La República,
Montevideo, Wednesday, August 17th.
MORALES, Salvador and Laura DEL ALIZAL, 1999, Dictadura, exilio e insurrección:
Cuba en la perspectiva mexicana 1952-1958, SRE, Mexico.
NÚÑEZ, César y Gabriela DÍAZ, 2002, “Desafío de la actual política de refugio en
México” in Memoria, num. 163, Mexico.
RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA, Guadalupe, “Una mirada urgente al sur” in Diana Guillen (coord.)
2003, Chiapas: rupturas y continuidades de una sociedad fragmentada, Instituto Mora,
Mexico.
RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA, Guadalupe, 2001, “Veinte años ¿no es nada? Vaivenes de la
política mexicana de refugio ante la migración forzada de guatemaltecos. Un recuento
ponencia presentada en el XXIII Congress of Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología,
Antigua, Guatemala.
RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA, Guadalupe, 2003, La política mexicana de asilo a la luz del caso
guatemalteco 1944-1954, SRE-Mora, Mexico.
105
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
RUIZ DE SANTIAGO, Jaime, 2003, “Derechos Humanos, Derechos de los refugiados:
evolución y convergencias” in Antônio Augusto Cançado Tridade, et al., Las tres
vertientes de la protección internacional de los derechos de la persona humana. Derechos
humanos, Derecho humanitario y Derecho de los refugiados, Porrúa-UIA, Mexico.
SÁENZ CARRETE, Erasmo, 1995, El exilio latinoamericano en Francia: 1964-1979,
Potrerillos Editores, UAM-I, Mexico.
TENA RAMÍREZ, Felipe, 1957, Las leyes fundamentales de México 1808-1957, Porrúa,
Mexico.
UNIÓN PANAMERICANA, 1967, Tratados y convenciones interamericanas sobre asilo
y extradición, Secretaría General-OEA-Unión Panamericana, Tratados Series, num. 34,
Washington.
Documents
Archivo oral del proyecto Dictaduras y asilo del Instituto Mora, Unpublished, Mexico.
Compilación de instrumentos jurídico regionales relativos a derechos humanos, refugio
y asilo, 2002, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos
internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos humanos y temas conexos II).
Compilación histórica de la legislación migratoria en México 1821-2000, 2000, INMSG, Mexico.
Conclusiones y recomendaciones del Coloquio sobre el asilo y la protección internacional
de refugiados en América Latina, en Tlatelolco (1981) en 2002, Protección y asistencia
a refugiados en América Latina. Documentos regionales 1981-1999 CNDH-ACNURUIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados,
derechos humanos y temas conexos III).
Convención americana sobre derechos humanos en 2002, Compilación de instrumentos
jurídico regionales relativos a derechos humanos, refugio y asilo, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA,
Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados,
derechos humanos y temas conexos II).
Convención de la Organización para la Unidad Africana (OUA) por la que se regulan los
aspectos específicos de problemas de los refugiados en África, en Addis Abeba (1969) in
2002, Compilación de instrumentos jurídico regionales relativos a derechos humanos,
refugio y asilo, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos
internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos humanos y temas conexos II).
Convención sobre asilo (1928) en 1967, Unión Panamericana, Tratados y convenciones
interamericanas sobre asilo y extradición, Secretaría. General-OEA-Unión Panamericana,
Washington (Tratados Series No. 34).
Convención sobre asilo político (1933) en 1967, Unión Panamericana, Tratados y
convenciones interamericanas sobre asilo y extradición, Secretaría. General-OEA-Unión
Panamericana, Washington (Tratados Series No. 34).
Convención sobre asilo diplomático (1954) en 1967, Unión Panamericana, Tratados y
convenciones interamericanas sobre asilo y extradición, Secretaría. General-OEA-Unión
Panamericana, Washington (Tratados Series No. 34).
Convención sobre asilo territorial (1954) en 1967, Unión Panamericana, Tratados y
convenciones interamericanas sobre asilo y extradición, Secretaría. General-OEA-Unión
Panamericana, Washington (Tratados Series No. 34).
Convención sobre el estatuto de los refugiados (1951) en 2002, Principios y criterios
relativos a refugiados y derechos humanos, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, Mexico (Colección de
106
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos humanos y temas
conexos I).
Declaración americana de los derechos y deberes del hombre (1948), en 2002, Compilación
de instrumentos jurídico regionales relativos a derechos humanos, refugio y asilo, CNDHACNUR-UIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a
refugiados, derechos humanos y temas conexos II)
Declaración de Cartagena sobre los refugiados (1984), in 2002, Protección y asistencia
a refugiados en América Latina. Documentos regionales 1981-1999, CNDH-ACNURUIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados,
derechos humanos y temas conexos III); and in La protección internacional de los
refugiados en América Central, México y Panamá: problemas jurídicos y humanitarios.
Memoria del coloquio en Cartagena de Indias 1983, Bogotá, ACNUR, Centro Regional
de Estudios del Tercer Mundo, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1986.
Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre el asilo territorial (1967) in 2002, Principios
y criterios relativos a refugiados y derechos humanos, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, México
(Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos
humanos y temas conexos I).
Declaración de Tlatelolco sobre acciones prácticas en el derecho de los refugiados en
América Latina y el Caribe (1999) in 2002, Protección y asistencia a refugiados en
América Latina. Documentos regionales 1981-199, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, Mexico,
(Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos
humanos y temas conexos III).
Declaración universal de los derechos humanos (1948) in 2002, Principios y criterios
relativos a refugiados y derechos humanos, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, Mexico (Colección de
Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos humanos y temas
conexos I).
Decreto de Creación de la Comisión Mexicana de Apoyo a Refugiados, 1980, in Diario
Oficial de la Federación, July 22nd, Mexico.
Decreto de ratificación de la Convención de 1951 y del Protocolo de 1967 en México,
2000, Diario Oficial de la Federación, June 1st, Mexico.
Decreto por el que se reforma, adiciona y deroga diversas disposiciones de la Ley General
de Población en México, 1996, Diario Oficial, November 8th, Mexico.
Expediente 31-10-3 del Archivo Histórico Diplomático de Relaciones Exteriores de
México, Unpublished.
Expediente III-1320-2 del Archivo Histórico Diplomático de Relaciones Exteriores de
México, Unpublished.
Fichas s.n. del Archivo del Instituto Nacional de Migración de México
Legajo Encuadernado 1120 del Archivo Histórico Diplomático de Relaciones Exteriores
de México
Legajo Encuadernado 1121 del Archivo Histórico Diplomático de Relaciones Exteriores
de México, Unpublished.
Legajo Encuadernado 2258 del Archivo Histórico Diplomático de Relaciones Exteriores
de México, Unpublished.
México, “Ley de Inmigración” (1909) in 2000, Compilación histórica de la legislación
migratoria en México 1821-2000, INM-SG, Mexico.
México, “Ley de Migración” (1926) in 2000, Compilación histórica de la legislación
migratoria en México 1821-2000, INM-SG, Mexico.
107
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
México, “Ley de Migración” (1930) (with its “Reglamento”, 1932) in 2000, Compilación
histórica de la legislación migratoria en México 1821-2000, INM-SG, Mexico.
México, “Ley General de Población” (1936) in 2000, Compilación histórica de la
legislación migratoria en México 1821-2000, INM-SG, Mexico.
México, “Ley General de Población” (1947) in 2000, Compilación histórica de la
legislación migratoria en México 1821-2000, INM-SG, Mexico.
México, “Ley sobre Extranjeros y Naturalización o Ley de Extranjería” (1886) in 2000,
Compilación histórica de la legislación migratoria en México 1821-2000, INM-SG,
Mexico.
México, 1950, Ley General de Población con sus reformas y Reglamento de la misma,
Talleres Gráficos de la Nación, Mexico.
México, Diario Oficial de la Federación, Mexico, July 22nd, 1980.
México, 1993, Ley General de Población y Reglamento, Talleres Gráficos de la Nación,
Mexico.
México, Diario Oficial de la Federación, Mexico, June 1st, 2000.
Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos de las Naciones Unidas (1966) in
2000, Principios y criterios relativos a refugiados y derechos humanos, CNDH-ACNURUIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados,
derechos humanos y temas conexos I).
Principios y criterios relativos a refugiados y derechos humanos, 2002, CNDH-ACNURUIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados,
derechos humanos y temas conexos I).
Protección y asistencia a refugiados en América Latina. Documentos regionales 19811999, 2002, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, Mexico (Colección de Instrumentos jurídicos
internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos humanos y temas conexos III)
Protocolo sobre el estatuto de los refugiados (1967) en 2002, Principios y criterios
relativos a refugiados y derechos humanos, CNDH-ACNUR-UIA, Mexico (Colección de
Instrumentos jurídicos internacionales relativos a refugiados, derechos humanos y temas
conexos I).
Reformas en México, 1993, México, Ley General de Población y Reglamento, Talleres
Gráficos de la Nación, Mexico.
Reglamento de la Ley General de Población en Diario Oficial, Second Section, May 3rd,
1962, Mexico.
Reglamento de la Ley General de Población en México, Diario Oficial, Second Section,
Mexico, May 3rd, 1962).
108
International protection and the rights of the politically persecuted... /A. Buriano et al.
Ana BURIANO CASTRO
She is a permanent researcher-professor at Dr. José María Luis Mora Research
Center. She holds a Ph.D. in Latin American Studies. She is the author of articles
in periodic publications and of introductory studies related to topics such as
South American political asylum during the 70’s and the 80`s. Her main research
line is focused on the analysis of the Latin American political thought in the
XIX century, especially conservative. She is a professor in Mexican institutions.
Among her recent published works one finds: “Ecuador: un régimen conservador
en épocas de liberalismo rampante” in Sara Ortelli and Héctor Cuauhtémoc
Hernández Silva (coordinators); América en la época de Juárez. La consolidación
del liberalismo. Procesos políticos, sociales y económicos (1854-1872), Mexico,
Benito Juárez Autonomous University of Oaxaca, Metropolitan Autonomous
University, 2007; “‘Los brazos del mundo’: México en Uruguay a través del
asilo diplomático. El embajador Vicente Muñiz Arroyo”, Boletín del Instituto de
Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM, 2007 (in edition); Navegando en la borrasca:
construir la nación de la fe en el mundo de la impiedad. Ecuador, 1860-1875,
Mexico, Instituto Mora, 2007 (in print); Uruguay siglo XIX: textos de su historia,
Mexico, Instituto Mora, 2006 (in print) co-author with Silvia Dutrénit; “URSS:
paradojas de un destino” in Silvia Dutrénit (coord.), El Uruguay del exilio: gente,
circunstancias, escenarios, Montevideo, Trilce, 2006.
E-mail: aburiano@mora.edu.mx
Silvia DUTRÉNIT BIELOUS
She holds a Ph. D. in Latin American Studies, she is a member of the National
System of Researchers level II and a regular member of Academia Mexicana de
Ciencias. She is a permanent professor-researcher at Dr. José María Luis Mora
Research Center. She is a member of Historia Reciente in Clacso and part of
the project “Memoria y política: de la discusión teórica a una aproximación al
estudio de la memoria política en México” (CONACYT CB-2005-01-49295).
She has been a lecturer and a professor in Mexican and foreign institutions. She
is coordinator of regional projects on history of the Latin American political and
party behavior of the XX century. She is the author of several books and articles
on the topics that she is specialized in. Among her last published works stands
out the book she coordinated: El Uruguay del exilio. Gente, circunstancias y
escenarios, Montevido, Trilce, 2006.
E-mail: sdutrenit@mora.edu.mx
109
July / September 2008
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 57
CIEAP/UAEM
Gudalupe RODRÍGUEZ DE ITA
She holds a Ph.D. in Latin American Studies from the Faculty of Philosophy
and Letters of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. She is a
permanent professor-researcher at Dr. José María Luis Mora Research Center.
She is a professor at Colegio de Estudios Latinoamericanos of the Faculty of
Philosophy and Letters of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. She
is a member of the National System of Researchers. Among her recent published
works are: “Ampliando horizontes: las mujeres democráticas y su I Congreso
Interamericano” in Carlos Maciel Sánchez and Mayra Lizzete Vidales Quintero,
Historias y estudios de género: una ventana a la cotidianidad, Mexico, Juan
Pablos/Facultad de historia-UAS, 2006; “Minerva Bernardino: entre la labor
interamericana por las luchas por las mujeres y la colaboración con el trujillismo”
in Rosario Rodríguez and Jorge Castañeda (coords.); El Caribe: vínculos
coloniales, modernos y contemporáneos. Nuevas reflexiones, debate y propuestas,
Mexico, IIH-UMSNH /AMEC/Mora, 2007; “La Comisión Interamericana de
Mujeres: organismo estatal multinacional pionero en la defensa de los derechos
femeninos” in Instituciones y procesos políticos en América Latina y el Caribe,
Mexico, IIH-UMSNH, in print.
E-mail: gri@mora.edu.mx
110